examination from Heydrich calling for a liquidation of Jews other than those between the ages of sixteen and thirty-two years of age; you stated that you put this in your office safe in order to think it over. What was your action upon it? on the order.
Q You refused to pass this order on? hand it on.
Q That, at least, was a passive refusal? checked up on the different Einsatzgruppen to see the orders that had been issued from Berlin were carried out?
A No, there was no such man at the time. Heydrich was the chief, and apart from him there was nobody special who was given the commission to check on the Einsatzgruppen, or do anything of the sort. Berlin, this being a military, or at least a para-military organization, weren't you required to reply by endorsement, that is, something like contents received, or noted, carried out, or ignored?
A No. In that case it did not happen that way. of these orders? matter - only the receipt was confirmed, but if it was not a top secret matter, no receipt was given for it. It was a more formality, it has nothing to do with the contents.
as to the execution of the tasks given to their subordinate commanders was by the reports sent to Amt-IV RSHA, is that correct? any other authority. to Amt IV?
A I don't think so. It is possible that monthly reports were still made, but I can not remember any details any more.
Q In other words, you merely do not remember? and what kind of reports were made. formal report, were they?
A They were reports. Situational Reports, and Activity Reports, which as far as I remember the commander sent in every month.
Q To you?
Q But to you first? reports at their discretion, the two reports could be made simultaneously.
Q You did receive your reports?
A What do you mean? My own? you say it was their privilege to sent out simultaneously. You received yours?
did not contain reports of executions?
A I can not remember details any more. I do not dare to state that in a huge territory and for that set tine there were no deaths. subordinates then, you know of that possibility, don't you? could have done so is quite possible. were carried out by your subordinates and in turn reported to you? partisans in the city proper, but now I can not say any more what actually happened there, and how many people died there. I remember for example that this happened. they were Jewish, nor armed but Jewish; therefore, not partisans, but Jewish? have happened while you were in command, do you?
A It might have happened? East, you had two positions. First, the Chief of Einsatzgruppen-A, and, secondly, that you were BDS or Commander-inchief of force of Security Police and SD, is that right? description of your duties, first, as Chief of Einsatzgruppe-A, secondly, as Commander-in-Chief of Security Police and SD?
instructions Heydrich gave me, and depended on the position in which Einsatzgruppe-A was
Q That was the position of Einsatzgruppe-A?
A What the position was? The position of Einsatzgruppe A was, as stated yesterday, that there were the three commandants, I-A at Krasnogwardeisk, and commander I-A was part of the roar army area in Estonia, and had to deal with those areas which overlapped the civilian administration; the Commander Krasnogwardeisk was working in the territory of the 18th army, and the commander of Loknia was near the front with the 16th Army. existed? dissolved before my time, or were subdivided before my time. I don't know exactly whether the Kommando of Loknia consisted only of Kommando-II or only part of this, and whether a new subdivision were added. All this happened before my time. I only know that during my time One-A, Krasnowardeisk and Loknia were talked about and written about.
Q Let's get on to the BDS. When Heydrich assigned you to Einsatzgruppe-A you stated it was no longer active as an Einsatzgruppe, is that correct? the beginning, were no longer dealt with, because the Kommando Loknia was part of the troops, and Kommando Krasnowardeisk dealt with part of army duties, that is espionage, counter intelligence, part of them general security duties. These were the original tasks which had been assigned to the Einsatzgruppe.
against your expressed wishes, did Heydrich insist upon naming you the Chief of Einsatzgruppe-A?
A Why he insisted on it? Or rather, why he didn't comply with my request to send somebody else there in my place. I don't know exactly why. He told me at the moment he didn't have any one at his disposal for this.
Q My question is, not why he didn't appoint some one else. You have stated that, at least in a sense, this was a case of temporary command. You had nothing to do. You had no Kommando under Einsatzgruppe-A?
A I understand you now. I said yesterday that the group staff in Krasnowardeisk, that is, the group staff of Einsatzgruppe-I-A were almost one unit with Kommando Krasnogwardeisk, because no other task had been assigned to the kommando in such a way, that the existence of special groups or groupstaff was no longer justified; they had not really been dissolved but they had become a unit. kommando still active as you were appointed commander? stated that there is a possibility that executions of Jews took place, is that correct? as in that territory there were no Jews.
Q Then let's broaden the question to include your task of the troops under your command as BDS-Ostland? Were there any executions that took place during your period of command as chief of Einsatzgruppe-A or BDS Ostland?
Q First, was Estonia under your command? ambiguous position, in as far as first, there was Sonderkommando-A which came under the commander in the rear of the territory in Verra, and, also under the commander of the Security Police and SD, and again belonged to the general district of Estonia, therefore, there was an overlapping of the competency there.
Q Couldn't that be simplied by saying that although they could receive orders from others, they also received orders from you, and in turn had to report all happenings within their areas to you?
A Not every event had to be reported to me. In many cases it might have happened, that only the military office was informed, or only a civilian office was informed. There is no guarantee that I heard about every event. the commanding officer of action of troops under him? that this always happened, because there was a possibility that the reports were sent to Berlin immediately. The commander had special authority to report independently from his superior.
Q: Previously you sadi that they must send reports and they had the right to make the simultaneously with a direct report to Berlin, and send a cive-copy to you?
A: They could have sent this to me, yes.
Q: Was Latvia also under your command?
A: Latvia was under the commander of Latvia.
Q: Was there a commander of Security Police there?
A: A commander of Security Police and the SD.
Q: Weren't you the commander-in-Chief of Security Police and SD?
A: Yes, I was the commander-in-chief.
Q: Therefore, these two as were subordinated to you?
A: With the modification I made yesterday.
Q: Which was?
A: That is an individual general district, as independently administrated, it was the general-commissar who was the responsible man. Under him was the SS and Police Leader, and order him the commander of Security Police and SD. This results in an subordination system which can make it possible that somebody might be omitted.
Q: You were the BDS Ostland?
A: Yes.
Q: These troops then of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and White Ruthenia were KDS for that particular countries?
A: As commanders of the security police, yes.
Q: Therefore, they were subordinate to you, is not that correct?
A: With the limitations I have mentioned.
Q: Did they not report to you?
A: They did send reports to me, but I have no guarantee that I got all of the reports.
Q: There is in the course of events a good, chance that you got most if not all?
A: I didn't know that.
Q: Was that not the custom to forward the reports to you?
A: I have explained repeatedly that the commanders had the right to give any reports to the RSHA, the Reich Ministry Security Office, and then to the Einsatzgruppe-commander; the scheme was quite different here, there was a different possibility of injustice for the RSHA and this could result in entirely different channels of command.
Q: But perhaps the channels were devious and many; but you were in one of the channels, were you not?
A: Yes, I belonged to it.
Q: You were in a commanding position?
A: I must repeat again and again - in a limited position as commander resulting from the special situation in this territory.
Q: Let's make it very clear then. You could issue orders, could you not?
A: Yes, I could issue orders.
Q: They owed you the duty of rendering reports and carrying out your orders, is that right?
A: If I had passed on this Heydrich Order at that moment, I would have given an order, of course, and would have requested that reports be sent to me; and would have waited until it was reported to me that this order had been carried out.
Q: I am going to show you one of the many reports received from the occupied zone of Russia. You have stated now that White Ruthenia, Lithuania, Estonia and Lativia were under your command, is not that correct?
A: I repeat; in the form I stated.
Q: I shall repeat, you could issue orders to the KDS, and these armies with the full expectation they would be carried out, is that correct?
A: Orders could be given by me, as well as by the commissar-general, and, also by the local Police and SS Leader; therefore, there were many possibilities of issuing orders, part of those orders could be given from the Reich Ministry Security Office, and also from the Higher Police and SS Leader, who would always do this immediately.
Q: Didn't the Higher SS and Police Leader customarly, except in the case of an emergency, issue final reports or rather orders to you for your subordinates?
A: Please repeat that.
Q: Was it not a custom, except in cases of rare emergencies, for the Higher SS and Police Leader to issue order to your subordinates through you?
A: During the time when I was there, I cannot remember any specific case. It might have been possible.
Q: Thank you. Now I want to point out a report I have here, and it would seem to the eye that there are clear marks of demarcation that is showing an expressed chain of command, and I want your comment upon it? (hands photostat to the witness)
A: Do you mean this page here? Do you mean this page here?
Q: That is right (Counsel is at the witness's box). I also would like to show the court what I mean and I point out what appears as a line of demarcation.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to do something for the purpose of the record -- you had better talk into the microphone, Mr. Clancy.
MR. CLANCY: I want to show the Tribunal the line of demarcation which would seem to note a definite chain of command.
It will be noted -
THE PRESIDENT: You are not getting that?
THE INTERPRETER: No, sir, I cannot hear.
MR. CLANCY: I wish to point one to the Tribunal the lines of demarcation which are outlined in the document, and which appears after each division and sub division, namely under Speduln there appear three dashes separating him from Brigadefuehrer Jost. This is identified under him with the commanders of the counries of Estonia, Latvia Lithuania and White Ruthenia.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this document been translated and will it be introduced as an exhibit?
MR. GLANCY: It has been translated, Your Honor. It is being distributed, and I am offering this copy for the archives of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GLANCY: It is Document NO-5156 and will be offered now as Prosecution's Exhibit 178.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, this might be a good point at which to suspend for the morning recess.
MR. GLANCY: Thank you sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
( A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, before you begin your cross-examination the Tribunal will announce that we will recess today at 12:15 instead of 12:30, and then reconvene at 2:15. You may proceed. BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q. Defendant Jost, there are a few points I would like to go over with you again in order to clarify some of the statements you have made. You have stated that on the 29th of March, 1942, you became fully aware of the Hitler order which meant the killing of defenseless people, is that correct?
A. May I first say something about a document which was previously submitted?
Q. Just a moment. If you please, I will ask you the questions in a very specific way, and I would appreciate it if you would speak up and answer the questions briefly and concisely and to the point. We will return to the document where you left off, and at that time you will be able to give as full an explanation as you care to make. Now, I ask you again, is it correct that on the 29th of March, 1942, you became aware of the Hitler order to kill defenseless people?
A. At the latest, at that day, yes.
Q. Specifically, who told you about this order?
A. I already said the former adjutant of my predecessor Stahlecker told me about the existence of this order, without being able to show it to me in a written form because it did not exist in a written form.
Q. And he gave it to you also as an order for you to carry out, is that correct?
A. No, he could not do that as an adjutant, of course.
Q. You mean he just passed the order on in a conversational way and said, "Here, you are arriving as commander of a unit, let me tell you about this order just for conversation, not for you to carry it out," is that what you are trying to imply?
A. No, An adjutant does not have the power to tell me to carry out an order.
Q. But he was passing on an order from Hitler. Was he telling you about it saving, "This is a Hitler order," just so you would be aware of it in a conversational way, or so you would know what your duties were to be?
A. He merely informed me about it upon my request to give me the Einsatzkommando orders, which he spoke about. He did not show it to me in a written form. It was made known to the Einsatzgruppe chief before an assignment was given to him.
Q. I realize it was met in a written form, but when an adjutant tells you that Hitler has ordered what defenseless women and children will be shot, don't you interpret that as telling you that you are to continue to carry out that order?
A. I already said that an adjutant does not have the possibility of telling a superior to carry out an order.
Q. What did you do immediately upon hearing this order?
A. I called up Berlin and tried to get in touch which Heydrich.
Q. Did you get in touch with Heydrich?
A. No, he was not there; he was on the road.
Q. What did you do after that?
A. About two days later I decided to go to Berlin In order to clarify the situation, and at that moment Heydrich, by superior, arrived in person.
Q. Why did you want to clarify the situation, was it because you were not clear as to exactly who was to be killed or was it you didn't believe that Hitler had given such an order? Why was it that you decided to call Heydrich or to go to Berlin?
A. In order to try, to have my assignment revoked.
Q. You have heard the Defendants Ohlendorf and Neumann testify from the stand that it would have been impossible or cut of the question to try to have this order revoked, have you not?
correct? the question to raise such a matter with anybody in Berlin. A Hitler order was not to be questioned. Now you tell us you did go back to question that order. How do you reconcile that with, the statements made by Ohlendorf and Naumann?
A These are two different matters. I wanted my position to be revoked. About the order, I asked Heydrich whether it could not be revoked for the Reich Commissariat, for there were no Jews; despite the existence of the order and despite the fact that the territory was under the domination of the Germans there were Jews and so I asked them whether this order could not be revoked for that area. order, is that correct? Berlin? be revoked for this area.
Q Just a content. We are back in Berlin. You said you went back to Berlin when you heard about the order in order to try to have it changed or to have it changed insofar as it affected you. Now I ask you just to clarify that statement, did you or did you net try to have the order revoked while you were in Berlin?
A I was not in Berlin at all. I wanted to go to Berlin, but then Heydrich case to Riga and in Riga the conversation took place. The trip to Berlin never took place, because Heydrich arrived in Riga on surprise.
QWell, when Heydrich arrived in Riga -- Let me say it this way: When you got to Riga, you tried to call Heydrich by telephone and he was not there.
A few days later he arrived in Riga at which time you tried to get him to revoke the order, is that correct?
A I asked him whether it wasn't possible to have this order revoked for the Eastern Territories.
Q Why did you do that? carried out on the basis of this order that the reasoning Jews be killed. be carried out when it was an order involving the killing of defenseless people, is that correct?
A May I have the question repeated.?
Q The question is: Since you told Heydrich that you didn't want the order to be carried out, to have it revoked at least for your area, didn't you then, in effect, tell him that a Hitler Order was wrong and should not be carried out?
A No, I did not tell him that. I merely asked him whether the order could not be revoked.
Q I am asking you why did you do that? Did you think the Hitler Order was wrong to kill defenseless people or did you think it was too difficult to carry out, or did you think now you should use those people as laborers? What was the motive behind your trying to have a Hitler Order revoked? misfortune.
Q What do you mean by misfortune? Do you think it was wrong to carry out this order? Did you think it was not necessary for the security of the Reich? immeasurable misfortune for the victims, that that will explain matters, to be killed, but Hitler considered it necessary for the security of the Reich and Ohlendorf and Neumann have explained that it was necessary to kill children, because the future security of the Reich would be endangered.
Therefore, it was correct to have such an order and to carry out such an order. Do you agree with that reasoning? Ohlendorf's reasons. I personally had the feeling of what had happened or what could happen - and this feeling overwhelmed me.
Q You are not answering the question. You are an attorney, are you not?
Q Well, please answer the question. Do you agree with the reasoning that defenseless people, Jews, particularly, should be shot or should have been shot to assure the security of the Reich? existing could be carried out humanly. The order exited and it was binding to everyone, with all the consequences of such an order of the Chief of State. Thinking about the details whatever it was necessary, etc., I don't think that one could make this analysis in detail in such a spiritual state of mind. in such a spiritual state of mind you stated you objected to this order. You went to Heydrich and you said you wanted to have the order revoked. You must have thought about the order. I just want to know what was in your mind, for what reasons you wanted to have it revoked. Did you think the order was correct? Did you think it was too difficult to carry out? Did you think it was wrong? What did you have in mind when you went to Heydrich to revoke the order?
Q How, just a moment. You say, then, that you thought the Hitler order was a wrong order, is that correct?
A It was not right. no, I did not consider it as right, I could not bring myself to think it was right.
the order was wrong? it, you did not think it was correct, which was the same thing. Did you mention this to Heydrich? did not exist to have the order revoked for the Eastland; and the second sentence, which contained my personal opinion. He had known me for eight years and I thought I had to tell him that I could not imagine how I was to carry out such types of measures. That is the content of my explanation in two sentences.
A The first sentence shows that I objected to this order. Otherwise, I would not have asked for its revocation. The second sentence shows, my personal human attitude. wrong, did you? was sufficient in the situation, for it was a matter of being successful and asking and not the formulation in detail, and one could not think about for hours, years and months previously, but one had to make it right at the moment. morally wrong? when I got it. order, even though it came from Hitler, is that correct?
already. Here it is only the question whether such an order given by the Chief of State is legal. The next question, what can one do against such an order, or how can one express one's opinion, or what can one do about such an order for having it revoked; and there is a further question whether one can carry it out, for there are many things in this world which are absolutely legal, which are terrible in carrying them out, but that doesn't change the legality, but if I am prepared to say other things which are not pleasant either, so, for instance, the Potsdam Agreement is absolutely legal there can be no doubt about it ....
Q I don't like to interrupt, but, perhaps, will you just state your point? What is the point you are trying to make with your answer? of State.
Q I didn't raise the question of legality at all. I asked you morality is connected with the fact of whether the order was given by the Chief of State and therefore is legal. repulsed by it. I thought I understood you to say earlier that you thought such an order was wrong. Are you now saying that you thought it was legally wrong? That is why you were repulsed by it, though morally you thought it was correct and necessary? existed and was there and I thought it impossible of execution and as I expressed it yesterday, I thought there were enough people who would do something against this order, and see that it was revoked.
Q Why was it impossible of execution? Some of the other defendants have explained how they executed the order. Why do you say it was impossible of execution?
certain groups, I was not able to pass on this order. I just was not in a position to do so.
Q You mean you were too work to carry on and pass on this order?
A If I had been weak and soft, I would have passed it on. I think this needs tremendous strength not to pass this order on.
Q But why didn't you pass the order on? That is the point I am trying to raise. Did you think it was morally wrong and did you think it was physically impossible? What was the reason why you refused to pass or an order from Hitler? the result of the carrying out of the order would be terrible for many thousands of people and that this over whelmed me so much that I just could not pass on the order. If you can imagine such a situation - I don't know whether it can be reconstructed by a third person, at least this was sufficient for me, and I would like to add this: I looked at the problem from a historical point of view and I locked for examples in history where another things the First World War. when Monkey threw out the Armenians for military security and transported then to the Sinai desert and thereby killed 2,000,000 Armenians in a terrible way. This was an extermination like only to say by this example that I looked into this situation from all sorts of views and considered it. because you thought it morally wrong?
A Yes, I have given my statement. It isn't possible today, after 51 years , to give a detailed analysis of the feelings and thoughts. whether it is right or wrong, or whether it was right or wrong to kill defenseless people?
everything to see that the order was revoked. More than that I could not do.
Q Well, you certainly did not consider it correct. Let's pass on.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, just as a matter of chronology, I would like to know when he received the written order. Witness, you learned of the order orally on March 29, 1942. When did you receive the written order?
THE WITNESS: The end of April or beginning of May.
THE PRESIDENT: And between the end of March and the beginning of May on what orders were you operating?
THE WITNESS: I then was not operating at all, but the explanation of Heydrich "that may be we will come to a resettlement" aroused the hope in me that actually a change might he possible. That I was wrong in believing in this hope shook me, very much, because, after all, I did get the order later, for I had not counted on such a possibility.
THE PRESIDENT: You May proceed, Mr. Ferencz. BY MR. FERENCZ: revoked?
A "Perhaps we will come to a resettlement." a Hitler order? manner Heydrich could speak with Hitler about this matter. I did not know what the two men did discuss between each other. I absolutely could not survey that.
Q What did you judge from his answer?
A I beg your pardon?
Q You say he said they would see if they couldn't change the order or have it revoked, is that correct?